When even a New York Times journalist trashes you in front of his readership, you know your situation is rather precarious.
The simple fact is, Francis’ heresy has gone mainstream. People from all walks of life simply acknowledge the fact, and write about the possible outcomes. It’s beyond parody. It’s the Evil Clown’s papacy.
You may say Douthat is conservative for NYT standards, but he certainly isn’t based on Catholic ones. More crucially, his own boss or bosses decide he should present the situation to his readers as a Catholic and, as a Catholic, candidly telling you what is wrong with the man.
For all the atheist readers of the NYT, it must be a strange sensation. They might be inclined to, but can they really side with Judas? And if they do, with what reasoning? “I hope Francis succeeds because he is trying to destroy the Church”? How can, then, one like that blame those who resist the Evil Clown?
Francis has lost face. Even the most retarded among the Pollyannas know by now on which side he is. It is what it is. The Pope is a heretic, and proves it every day. He might not have the balls for formal heresy, but it certainly will not be for his lack of trying.
Hey, even the readers of the NYT know it by now.
Now imagine you are a bishop, and you are incensed at this obscene spectacle. What do you do, give the heresy a legitimate platform, and “discuss” about it? Or you simply put an end to such a mess?
The answer is clear. The best way to do this is to not only destroy the legitimacy of this Synod, but the legitimacy of this papacy, too.
Dear God-fearing bishops, please kick this papacy in the head.
Time to walk out.
Time to walk out.
Time to walk out.
There is an article on that pit of iniquity called New York Times that, for once, deals with the events of the last weeks in a half balanced way.
Forget the man’s rubbish about “the gays” (he writes for the NYT after all, “where sodomy and lesbianism are embraced and proposed”), and focus on the main points of Mr Douthat’s article:
1. The Pope was the instigator of the attempt at the Church’s sacramental life
2. He has failed to see it executed.
3. The Bishops (at large) did not follow him, because they never could.
4. Were it to happen as the Pope desires, a situation of – proclaimed or de facto – schism or vacant see would kick in as the bishops who still are Catholic refuse to share responsibility with those who aren’t. Pat Buchanan made a similar point last week. They are clearly both right.
It does not take a genius to get all these points, but it is notable that a Mr Douthat – a mainstream journalist writing for an atrociously secular and anti-Christian publication – gets them. It means that in the next 12 months more and more people, even not interested in the ways and life of the Church, will get one thing clear: that whatever their personal errors and warped way of seeing life, they can’t just demand that the Church converts to them. She will not, because she is the Church.
An outsider like Douthat sees, though, very clearly what many of our own Pollyannas still do not want to see: this Pope has already led the Church on the brink of the abyss, and there is no guarantee he will not decide to jump into it, carrying with him as many as he can.
In Catholic language – which Mr Douthat does not use – it means that this Pope is the enemy of Catholicism, and a threat to the Church the like of which has not been seen since John XXII.
Even the parts of the secular world with a functioning brain begin to understand the stakes of this tragic game.
It is astonishing – and inexcusable – that so many parts of the Catholics still do not.
You wouldn’t believe it, but sometimes even journalists of liberal newspapers can grasp elementary truths and inform their readers of the fact. This time, it has happened to the author of this article on the Boston Globe, the NYT-owned, surprisingly-still-alive “progressive” newspaper. The issue is, as so often these days, the so-called “marriage” of troubled souls.
The author of the article demolishes – from the left; which hurts in a special way – one of the mantras of the homo mafia: the desire to equate their “rights” with the civil rights battles of the Sixties and in particular, the idea that as interracial marriages were allowed, then “marriages” between (or one day, who knows: among) homosexuals should be allowed too. Let us see what Mr Jacoby has to say on the matter (emphases always mine):
When the Supreme Court ruled in June 1967 that Virginia’s law penalizing interracial marriage could not stand, it was not changing the fundamental and enduring meaning of marriage: It was affirming it. It was upholding the integrity of marriage by protecting it from irrelevant — and unconstitutional — racial manipulation. Virginia had interfered with the core elements of marriage in order to promote white supremacy, a value completely alien to marriage. Marriage is designed to bring men and women together; anti-miscegenation laws frustrated that design, and could not stand.
That this is nothing to do with an assumed right of perverts to have a legal recognition for their perversion is elegantly expressed in this way:
No one was a fervent proponent of gay* marriage 44 years ago this month when the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that laws barring whites and blacks from marrying were unconstitutional. Same-sex marriage wasn’t even a fringe issue on June 12, 1967, the day the court handed down its landmark decision in Loving v. Virginia, invalidating anti-miscegenation statutes on the books in 16 states as “invidious racial discrimination . . . repugnant to the 14th Amendment.’’ If anyone had suggested to Chief Justice Earl Warren or his colleagues that in refusing to allow Virginia to continue perverting its marriage laws out of racial bigotry they were pointing the way to gay* and lesbian marriages, they would have found the claim unintelligible.
Pure common sense, you will say. Wrong. If you were a liberal, you’d be exposed to literature claiming that the changes brought about by that sentence are allegedly “incomplete” because so-called gay* marriage is still illegal in most American states (I kid you not; it is in the article linked), and the like. A tough job, being a liberal and trying to stay sane.
At this point, Mr Jacoby gets slightly more aggressive:
By now, of course, the idea that same-sex couples should have the same freedom to marry as interracial couples has become a favorite gay*-rights trump card. So has the view that opponents of gay* marriage occupy the same moral and legal swamp as the segregationists who thought Mildred and Richard Loving’s marriage should be a crime.
Apart from the use of that strange word, gay*, this could have been written by a conservative journalist. Oh-oh.
The core of the argument is in the following lines:
Same-sex marriage, too, interferes with the core elements of wedlock in order to advance an unrelated goal — the dignity and equality of gays* and lesbians. The fact that many decent people ardently embrace that goal doesn’t change reality: The essential, public purpose of marriage is to unite male and female — to bind men and women to each other and to the children that their sexual behavior may produce. It is rooted in the belief that every child needs a mother and a father. Gay* marriage, whether enacted by lawmakers or imposed by judges, disconnects marriage from its most basic idea. Ultimately, that isn’t tenable either.
Apart from the obscenely misguided idea that an anti-Christian perverted militant may be “decent” other than in his table or cocktail party manners, this hits the bull’s-eye. Note here that this isn’t an affirmation of the uselessness of such a legislation: this is an emphatic affirmation of its biological absurdity; something that no law or judicial activism will ever be able to change. Boldly, the author makes a claim that in a conservative writer would be considered triumphalistic and extremely reactionary: the so-called homo-marriage won’t last, because it’s too absurd to stand the test of reality.
The best part is for the end:
The old laws banning interracial marriage had a long run but they eventually collapsed. The new laws in New York and some other states authorizing same-sex marriage may be destined for a long run as well, but I suspect they too will likely eventually collapse. Marriage — male-female marriage — is indispensable to human welfare. That is why it has existed in virtually every known human society. And why it cannot be permanently redefined.
Congratulation to the Boston Globe for managing, even as liberals, to see the light now and then.
*”gay” = here: homosexual(s). Don’t ask me why.